Analogy is the establishment of the similarity of phenomena, objects, processes according to some characteristics through association, comparison, reflection; a common method of scientific and philosophical research.
Origins of analogy
The concept of analogy appeared in Ancient Greece and was realized in the form of proportion, or quantitative relationships. Analogy originally denoted a mathematical method and was studied by the Pythagoreans as relationships between numbers. In the works ancient Greek philosophers(Plato, Aristotle) proportion was used to equate qualitative phenomena and was considered as a rhetorical device.
Aristotle introduced analogy into logic as an inference, a conclusion about the properties of an object based on its similarity with another object, in which the characteristics of one object of comparison are transferred to another. The philosopher studied the form of inference by analogy (Greek paradeigma) through example.
Example analogy:
“...old age relates to life as evening relates to day, so we can call evening “old age of day” (or as in Empedocles), and old age – “evening of life” or “twilight of life.”
(Aristotle)
Analogy in fiction
In the context of artistic creativity, analogy contains a metaphorical meaning and is a vivid figurative phenomenon. Common analogies in fiction are:
- comparison of characters, plots of different works and authors. Using analogy, the connection and kinship of the heroes of classical Russian literature is determined. For example, Turgenev's Rudin, Lermontov's Pechorin and Pushkin's Eugene Onegin are united by general type « extra person» XIX century.
- identification of a person with a literary hero. Detection of common personal characteristics, or drawing a parallel between a person and a literary character, help express the state and qualities of people through an artistic image, and promote self-knowledge. A striking analogy was made by Charlie Chaplin when he asked a superior for a job and compared himself to the hero of Charles Dickens: “I felt like Oliver Twist asking for more.”
The generalizing nature of the analogy determines the formation of common nouns from the names of characters classical works, whose images embody bright human traits. Maxim Gorky noted: “We call every liar Khlestakov, a sycophant Molchalin, a hypocrite Tartuffe, a jealous person Othello, etc.” Finding such correspondences contributes to the development of the reader’s imaginative thinking and ensures the longevity of a work of art.
The activation of analogies is provided for by allegorical literary genres built on allegory: myths, fables, parables.
Relevance of the appointment
In the ancient period, analogy was used and mastered mainly in mathematics, logic, philosophy, in the Middle Ages - in theological teachings; starting from the Renaissance, it has been regularly used and developed as a means of understanding scientific and cultural phenomena.
The analogy technique is used in industry research modern science and artistic creativity, both in logical and metaphorical meaning. Along with the development of science, new forms of judgment by analogy (modeling, etc.) are being formed.
The word analogy comes from Greek analogia, which means proportion, proportionality, similarity.
ANALOGY
ANALOGY
(from Greek analogia - correspondence) - between objects, phenomena, etc. Inference according to A. (or simply A.) is inductive, when, on the basis of the similarity of two objects in some one parameters, it is concluded that they are similar in other parameters. For example, the planets Mars and Earth are similar in many ways: they are located nearby in the solar system, both have an atmosphere, etc.; on Earth there is; since Mars is similar to Earth from the point of view. conditions necessary for the existence of living things, it can be concluded that there is also life on Mars. This is obviously only plausible.
A. -, known since ancient times. Sciences. Even then it was noticed that not only objects, but also the relationships between them can resemble each other, correspond and be similar in their properties. In addition to A. properties, there is also A. relations. For example, in the well-known planetary model of the atom, its structure is similar to the structure solar system: light electrons move around a massive core at different distances from it in closed orbits, just as the planets revolve around the Sun. The atomic nucleus is not like the Sun, and the electrons are not like planets; but the relationship between the nucleus and the electrons is much like the relationship between the Sun and the planets. Continuing this similarity, we can assume that electrons, like planets, move not in circular, but in elliptical orbits.
Similarity comes with difference and there is no such thing as indifference. A. is always an attempt to continue the “similarity of the dissimilar,” and to continue it in a new, unknown direction. It does not provide reliable knowledge: if reasoning according to A. is true, this does not mean that his conclusion will be true. An analysis that gives a high probability is usually called strict. Scientific A. are usually strict. Inferences according to A., not uncommon in Everyday life, as in, are not particularly strict, or even simply superficial. Accuracy is not required at all from artists found in fiction; they have a different task, and they are evaluated according to other criteria, primarily by the strength of their artistic impact.
To increase the likelihood of conclusions based on A., it is necessary to strive to ensure that the actual, and not the apparent, similarity of the compared objects is captured and expressed. It is desirable that these objects be similar in important and essential features, and not in random and minor details. It is also useful for the range of matching features to be as wide as possible. But what is most important for the rigor of A. is the connection between similar features of objects and a transferable feature. The similarity information must be of the same type as that distributed to others. If the initial knowledge is internally connected with the transferred feature, the output increases markedly. And finally, when constructing an analysis, one should take into account not only the similar features of the compared objects, but also their differences. If the latter are internally associated with a feature that is supposed to be transferred from one object to one, A. will turn out to be unlikely.
Appeal to A. can be dictated by different tasks. It can be used to obtain new knowledge, to make something less understandable more understandable, to present it in a more accessible form, to concretize abstract ideas and problems, etc. According to A., one can also reason about what is inaccessible to direct observation. A. can serve as a means of putting forward new hypotheses, be a unique method of solving problems by reducing them to previously solved problems, etc.
Reasoning according to A. has given science many brilliant results, often completely unexpected. So, in the 17th century. blood in the body was compared to the ebb and flow of the sea; A. with a pump led to the idea of continuous blood circulation. DI. Mendeleev, having constructed a table of chemical elements, found that three places in it remained unfilled; based on known elements occupying similar places in the table, he indicated quantitative and quality characteristics three missing elements, and they were soon discovered. A. between living organisms and technical devices is the basis of bionics, which uses open structures and vital functions of organisms in solving engineering problems and constructing technical systems.
A. is, therefore, powerful generator new ideas and hypotheses. Analog transfers provide fairly solid ground for controlled risk. With their help, solutions that have already proven their effectiveness, albeit in a different context, are mobilized, and connections are established between new ideas and what is already considered reliable knowledge.
At the same time, A., and in particular A. relationships, can be purely external, replacing the actual relationships of things, contrived. Similarities of this kind were common in medieval thinking; all kinds of fortune-telling and prophecy are based on them.
A. has weak evidentiary power. Continued similarities may be superficial or even misleading. However, persuasiveness does not always coincide. Often, a strict, step-by-step approach turns out to be inappropriate and less convincing than a fleeting, but figurative and vivid A. Proof is a powerful correction and deepening of beliefs, while A. is like a homeopathic medicine, taken in insignificant doses, but nevertheless providing noticeable healing Effect.
A. is a favorite means of persuasion in fiction, which, by its very essence, is contraindicated in straightforward methods of persuasion. A. is also widely used in ordinary life, in moral reasoning, in ideology, utopia, etc.
Metaphor, which is a vivid expression of artistic creativity, is, in essence, a kind of condensed, rolled up A. Almost every A., with the exception of those presented in frozen forms, like a parable or allegory, can spontaneously be a metaphor. An example of a metaphor with a transparent analogical relationship is the following comparison by Aristotle: “... old age is to life as evening is to day, so we can call evening “old age of the day” ... and old age - “evening of life”.” In the traditional sense, it represents the successful meaning of a word or expression. Through metaphor proper name is transferred to some other meaning that suits this name only in view of the comparison that is held in the mind. Already this interpretation of metaphor connects it with A. Metaphor arises as a result of the fusion of members of A. and performs almost the same functions as the latter. With t.zr. influence and persuasion, metaphor copes even better with these functions, since it strengthens A. by introducing it in a compressed form.
Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .
ANALOGY
(Greek- correspondence, similarity), 1) similarity of objects (phenomena, processes and T. d.) V k.-l. properties. When making inferences according to A. knowledge obtained from consideration k.-l. object (“models”), transferred to another, less studied (less accessible for research, less visual and T. P.) V k.-l. sense. In relation to specific objects, conclusions obtained using A., as a rule, are only plausible in nature; they are one of the sources scientific hypotheses, inductive reasoning (cm. Induction) and play an important role in scientific discoveries. If the conclusions according to A. relate to abstract objects, then they are defined. conditions (in particular, when establishing relations of isomorphism or homomorphism between them; cm. Isomorphism and ) can also give reliable conclusions.
2) Analogy of existence, analogy of being (lat. analogia entis), one of the principles of Catholicism. scholasticism, received special in neo-scholasticism (Przywara and etc.) ; substantiates knowledge - through A. - of the existence of God from the existence of the world he created, despite the fundamental nature of them.
Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editor: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983 .
ANALOGY
(from Greek analogia similarity)
similarity, equality of relations, and also by comparison. There must be both a difference between the things being compared and (see. Like); that which is the basis of comparison (cf. Tertium comparationis), must be more familiar than what is being compared. The difference and similarity of things must exist in unity (metaphysical analogy) or at least should not be separated (physical analogy). In the so-called in an attributive analogy, what is the basis for the similarity of two things is transferred from the first term of the analogy to the second (when, for example, by analogy with the human body, actions are considered “healthy”). In the so-called of proportional analogy, each of the terms of the analogy contains in which it is at the same time similar and dissimilar to the other (see. Analogia entis).
Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .
ANALOGY
(Greek ἀναλογία) - similarity of objects in a class. signs or relationships; inference according to A. is a conclusion made about the properties of one object based on its similarity with another object.
In Dr. In Greece, A. was understood as similarity of quantities, ratios, and proportion (Euclid, Aristotle). Aristotle called a conclusion about one single thing based on data about another thing an example (paradeigma). On Wednesday. centuries A. called the same name for different things. Inference according to A. is made according to the following scheme: objects A and B have the same attributes α1, α2,..., αn, object A, in addition, has the attribute β, therefore, B also has β. For example, let the ship () have the same shape (α1), the same ratio of weight to volume (α2), the same ratios between the weights of individual parts (α3, ..., αn) as the ship being built. If, when testing a model in a pool, it sank (β), then from this we can conclude from A. that ship B, made from this model, will also sink.
Depending on the nature of the objects being compared and the nature of the connection between the signs α1, α2,..., αn, on the one hand, and β, on the other, inference according to A. can lead to both a true and a false conclusion. History of human development. thinking is replete with examples of misconceptions that arose on the basis of false A. For example, in physics, A. between the spread of heat and the movement of fluid led in the 17th–18th centuries. to the doctrine of a special thermal fluid - caloric. The same A. led to the recognition of the existence of electricity. and magnetic fluids. These theories have long hindered the understanding of the true essence of thermal and electromagnetic phenomena. The abundance of errors, which are associated with incorrect A., led to skepticism. attitude towards A. in general. It is expressed in . proverb: comparaison n "est pas raison (-not proof).
On the other hand, A. often led to important discoveries. Thus, A. with waves on the surface of water helped to clarify the laws of propagation of sound and light. A. Darwin took advantage of selection in cattle breeding when creating his theory of nature. selection. A. played a major role in the creation of such sciences as analytical. geometry and mathematics .
In most works on logic (Kant, Mill, Höffding, etc.), the attitude towards logic is ambivalent: heuristic is recognized. the meaning of A. as an inference leading to a hypothesis, but the proof is denied. this conclusion. The fact that a number of features α1, α2,..., αn are common in two objects is not a sufficient basis for considering β to be common as well. Therefore, in the absence of further analysis of these features and the items being compared, the conclusion according to A. will only be probable, and to a very small extent. Increasing the probability of inference according to A. requires the fulfillment of certain conditions: 1) the characteristics α1, α2,..., αn common to A and B should be as large as possible. 2) Features α1, α2,..., αn must be significant for the compared objects A and B. 3) General signs should cover different sides the objects being compared should be as heterogeneous as possible. 4) The transferred feature β must be of the same type as α1, α2,..., αn. Compliance with these rules increases the likelihood of a conclusion according to A., although it does not make it completely reliable.
In technical sciences developed the so-called similarity, which makes it possible to determine the fulfillment of the conditions of evidence of A. for physical. systems described mathematically. equations. The conclusions obtained through the study of models created based on the application of similarity theory are proven. character. Recently, the use of models has become very widespread in technology, and a model can represent a system of a completely different physical system. nature than the object to which the characteristic obtained during the study of the model is transferred. For example, you can build an electric a bridge model consisting of capacitances, inductances and resistances, the external cut has nothing to do with the shape of the bridge.
Inferences based on arithmetic are increasingly being used in other fields of knowledge - physics, mathematics, linguistics, cybernetics, etc. Development common methods, with the help of which it would be possible to determine the fulfillment of the conditions of evidence of any conclusion according to A., is an important task of logic.
Lit.: Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 1, M., 1955, p. 602; theirs, Fav. letters, , 1953, p. 316, 369, 388–89; Marx K., Capital, vol. 1, [M.], 1955, p. 63–64, 78–79; Engels F., Anti-Dühring, M., 1957, p. 42, 122, 126, 127, 134, 317, 349, 354; his, Dialectics of Nature, M., 1955, pp. 22, 42, 43, 200; Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed., vol. 7, p. 442 vol. 8 P. 294, 492–94, vol. 10, p. 116–19, 196, vol. 14, p. 185–86, vol. 17, p. 52, 284–85, vol. 23, p. 229, t. 24, p. 15–18, 47, vol. 25, p. 44–45, 75–78, 233–34, 343, vol. 27, p. 159–66; Gutenmacher L. I., Electric models, M.–L., 1949; Morozov A.I., Secrets of Models, [M.], 1955; Butkovsky L.Z., Basic types of inferences, in the book; Favorite works of Russian logicians of the 19th century, M., 1956, p. 278–84; Aristotle, Analysts One and Two, trans. from Greek, [M.], 1952 (First, book 2, chapter 24); Kant I., Logika, M., 1915; Hegel G.V.F., Soch., vol. 6, M., 1939, p. 140–44; Mill D.M., System of syllogical and inductive logic, trans. from English, 2nd ed., M., 1914 (book 3, chapter 20); Maxwell D.K., On Faraday lines of force, in his book: Izbr. Op. on the theory of electromagnetic field, trans. [from English], M., 1954 (part 1 - Introduction); Mach E., Similarity and analogy as a guide to research, in his book: Cognition and Delusion, trans. from German, [M., 1909]; Olson G.F., Dynamic analogies, trans. from English, M., 1947; Polya D., Mathematics and, trans. from English, M., 1957; Biegański W., Wnioskowanie z analogji, Lw., 1909; Petrovitch M., La mécanique des phénomènes, fondée sur les analogies, [R., 1906]; Ηöffding H., Der Begriff der Analogie, Lpz., 1924; Maurice Dorolle, Le raisonnement par analogie, R., 1949.
A. Uyomov. Ivanovo.
Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .
ANALOGY
ANALOGY (Greek ?ναλογία-ρdimension, proportion) - the relationship of similarity between objects; reasoning by analogy is a conclusion about the properties of one object based on its similarity to other objects. General schemes of reasoning by analogy: object α has the properties Ai, Ai,..., А”, Ал+?; the object β has the properties A, Ar,..., A,: (I) it is probable that β has the property La-c; the objects a, a, a.g,.... a, have the property A; (II) it is probable that ο„+ι has property A.
The idea of “transferring” properties from one object to another dates back to antiquity. The term “analogy” was used by the Pythagoreans. Aristotle mentions proof by example (παράδειγμα) as a rhetorical device that combines induction with syllogism; the properties of one object are transferred to another through the formation of a general probabilistic judgment covering both objects; the inference is not certain, but only probable.
Leibniz gave a different meaning to analogy, seeing in it not a mode of probabilistic inference, but a method of scientific and philosophical knowledge arising from the principle of “identity of indistinguishables”: objects can be considered relatively identical if the difference between them is “vanishingly small,” that is, becomes less than any a predetermined value. Such objects can replace each other in all contexts “with preservation of truth.” Therefore, establishing an analogy is general condition any scientific and philosophical proof; universal truths obtained in such proofs refer to ideal constructs that act as analogues of real objects. The analogy method is multi-stage; Theoretical systems use analogies with previously constructed ideal constructs.
The ontological justification for the method of analogy in Leibniz’s philosophy is “optimality”: it is governed by a minimally simple system of laws and at the same time contains object diversity. Therefore, rationally similar phenomena have identical causes. But the researcher’s task is to establish maximum similarity, up to the “identity of indistinguishables.” Thus, analogy, according to Leibniz, plays a dual methodological role: as a powerful heuristic source of ideal constructs and as a means of their heuristic improvement.
The historical development of ideas about analogy involves a complex of logical (Aristotelian) and logical-methodological (Leibnizian) ideas. In assessing the analogy, the epistemological and methodological principles of various philosophical doctrines were refracted. Thus, Hegel called analogy an “instinct of reason” that grasps empirical determinations in the internal nature of objects, and Mill, having a low opinion of analogy as a type of induction and a method of achieving reliable results, saw it primarily in the heuristic method of producing hypotheses, stimulating the empirical. Behind general schemes reasoning by analogy is worth a whole spectrum various forms inferences that can be arranged in order of increasing degree of certainty of the conclusion (simple, widespread, strict or complete, isomorphic objects, etc.). Conditions that increase the likelihood of inference by analogy include: a) maximum number and heterogeneity of properties or objects being compared (breadth of analogy); b) the significance of the properties being compared (depth of analogy); c) the derivative of the transferred property from the general compared properties; d) the absence of properties in the object of the inferential judgment that obviously exclude the transferable, etc. However, compliance with such conditions does not guarantee complete inference by analogy.
In a number modern works(A.I. Uemov and others) conclusion by analogy is considered as a conclusion from the model to the original. The subject (or subjects) that is the direct object of research is called a model, and the subject to which the information obtained on the model is transferred is called an original or prototype. In cases where they use models constructed using the theory of similarity (J. Bertrand, M. V. Kirpichnikov), conclusions by analogy are completely reliable. The history of science provides examples of the use of analogy. Thus, an important role in the development of classical mechanics was played by the analogy between the motion of a thrown body and the motion of celestial bodies; the analogy between geometric and algebraic objects is realized by Descartes in analytical geometry; the analogy of selective work in cattle breeding was used by Darwin in his theory natural selection; The analogy between light, electrical and magnetic phenomena proved fruitful for Maxwell's theory of the electromagnetic field. An extensive class of analogies is used in modern scientific disciplines: in architecture and urban planning theory, bionics and cybernetics, pharmacology and medicine, logic and linguistics, etc. There are also numerous examples of false analogies. Such are the analogies between the movement of fluid and the spread of heat in the doctrine of “caloric” of the 17th-18th centuries, the biological analogies of the “social Darwinists” in the explanation of social processes, etc. The assessment of reasoning by analogy must be concretely historical. Thus, many of them (which later turned out to be incorrect or limited) had heuristic significance in a certain period: for example, the analogy with a clock mechanism in the physical picture of the world of the 17th century. contributed to the liberation of science from providentialism; analogy with hydraulic system helped W. Harvey's contemporaries understand his discovery of blood circulation, etc. A heuristic source of analogy in science can be taken from extrascientific - everyday experience, art, etc. But in developed science, as a rule, analogies drawn from the experience of the scientific disciplines. Often the main “supplier” of analogies is the “leading” field of science. Thus, the New Age gave rise to many analogies in the humanities and biological knowledge, and in our time biological analogies are widely used in the technical sciences. Huge role mathematical modeling determines the spread of mathematical analogies in all areas of modern science. In a number of works on the logic and methodology of science (J. Snead, W. Stegmuller) it is noted that the structure of a developed scientific theory includes many “paradigmatic” examples of its application (samples of problem solving); the appearance of problems for which there is no analogy is considered an anomaly and entails either an expansion of this set or a replacement of the theory itself. Thus, the concept of analogy is included in the methodological scheme of evolution scientific theories. In the context of scientific creativity, the subject of special analysis is the production and perception of analogy. In this aspect, the concept of analogy acquires psychological and didactic characteristics. The study of this is important for the development of technical devices of “artificial intelligence”. The analogy appears as complex theory knowledge, logic and methodology, history of science and psychology of creativity, pedagogy and cybernetics.
Lit.: Aristotle. Op. in 4 volumes, vol. 2. M., 1978, p. 248-49; Leibniz G.V. New information about the human mind. M.-L., 1936; Hegel G.V.F. Soch., vol. 6. M., 1939, p. 140-44; Mill J. S. System of syllogistic and inductive logic. M., 1914, book. 3, ch. 20; Mayorov G, G. Theoretical
Processes, quantities, etc. in any properties, as well as knowledge by comparison, for example:
Models of analogy
Analogy model (lat. modus - sample, copy, image) - an objective, mathematical or abstract system that imitates or reflects principles internal organization, functioning, features of the object under study (original), the direct study of which, for various reasons, is impossible or complicated. In the process of cognitive thinking, the “analogy model” performs various functions for a concise explanation (description in the form of an analogy) of a work, theory, doctrine, hypothesis, interpretation, and so on. Models are widely used in mathematics, logic, structural linguistics, physics, for modeling human society, history, analytics and other fields of knowledge. The conclusions behind the “analogy model” are hypothetical - the truth or falsity of which is subsequently discovered (confirmed or refuted) during verification (tests).
- Analogy in philosophy- an inference in which, based on the external similarity of objects based on some characteristics, a conclusion is drawn about the possibility of their similarity in other characteristics. For example, the concept “similarly” is used when making inferences by analogy; the knowledge gained when considering an object (object, model) is transferred to another, less accessible for research (contemplation, dialogue).
- Analogy in quantum physics - found wide application, with its help extensive abstract theories-analogies were built - models designed to better understand the nature of things, hidden from human vision. The model replaces this object, giving a general idea of it, or in the process of targeted study of the original, to obtain new information about it. These models were used to describe the atom, or atomic structure.
- Analogy in mathematics:
- “Perhaps there are no discoveries in elementary or higher mathematics, or perhaps in any other field, that could be made without analogy.” Gyorgy Pólya.
- “A mathematician is one who knows how to find analogies between statements, best mathematician- the one who establishes analogies of evidence, a stronger mathematician is the one who notices the analogies of theories; but one can also imagine someone who sees analogies between analogies.” Stefan Banach.
- Analogy in biology- similarity of any structures or functions that do not have a common origin, the opposite concept of homology.
- Analogy in theology(analogy of existence, analogy of being, lat. Analogia entis) - one of the basic principles of Catholic scholasticism, justifies the possibility of knowing the existence of God from the existence of the world he created.
- Analogy in linguistics- likening one unit of language to another in some respect.
see also
Write a review about the article "Analogy"
Notes
Literature
- // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron
- // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
- Kubryakova E. S.// Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: SE, 1990. - P. 31-32.
- Uemov A.I. Analogy in practice scientific research. - M., 1970. - 262 p.
Excerpt characterizing Analogy
When Gavrilo came to report to Marya Dmitrievna that the people who had come had run away, she stood up with a frown and folded her hands back, walked around the rooms for a long time, thinking about what she should do. At 12 o'clock at night, feeling the key in her pocket, she went to Natasha's room. Sonya sat in the corridor, sobbing.- Marya Dmitrievna, let me see her for God’s sake! - she said. Marya Dmitrievna, without answering her, unlocked the door and entered. “Disgusting, nasty... In my house... Vile little girl... I just feel sorry for my father!” thought Marya Dmitrievna, trying to quench her anger. “No matter how difficult it is, I’ll tell everyone to be silent and hide it from the count.” Marya Dmitrievna entered the room with decisive steps. Natasha lay on the sofa, covering her head with her hands, and did not move. She lay in the same position in which Marya Dmitrievna had left her.
- Good, very good! - said Marya Dmitrievna. - In my house, lovers can make dates! There's no point in pretending. You listen when I talk to you. – Marya Dmitrievna touched her hand. - You listen when I talk. You have disgraced yourself like a very lowly girl. I would do that to you, but I feel sorry for your father. I'll hide it. – Natasha did not change her position, but only her whole body began to jump up from silent, convulsive sobs that choked her. Marya Dmitrievna looked back at Sonya and sat down on the sofa next to Natasha.
- He’s lucky that he left me; “Yes, I will find him,” she said in her rough voice; – Do you hear what I’m saying? - She faked hers big hand under Natasha's face and turned her towards her. Both Marya Dmitrievna and Sonya were surprised to see Natasha’s face. Her eyes were shiny and dry, her lips were pursed, her cheeks were drooping.
“Leave... those... that I... I... will die...” she said, with an angry effort she tore herself away from Marya Dmitrievna and lay down in her previous position.
“Natalya!...” said Marya Dmitrievna. - I wish you well. You lie down, just lie there, I won’t touch you, and listen... I won’t tell you how guilty you are. You know it yourself. Well, now your father is coming tomorrow, what will I tell him? A?
Again Natasha's body shook with sobs.
- Well, he will find out, well, your brother, groom!
“I don’t have a fiance, I refused,” Natasha shouted.
“It doesn’t matter,” continued Marya Dmitrievna. - Well, they’ll find out, so why leave it like that? After all, he, your father, I know him, after all, if he challenges him to a duel, will it be good? A?
- Oh, leave me alone, why did you interfere with everything! For what? For what? who asked you? - Natasha shouted, sitting up on the sofa and looking angrily at Marya Dmitrievna.
- What did you want? - Marya Dmitrievna cried out again, getting excited, - why did they lock you up? Well, who stopped him from going to the house? Why should they take you away like some kind of gypsy?... Well, if he had taken you away, what do you think, he wouldn’t have been found? Your father, or brother, or fiancé. And he’s a scoundrel, a scoundrel, that’s what!
“He’s better than all of you,” Natasha cried, standing up. - If you hadn’t interfered... Oh, my God, what is this, what is this! Sonya, why? Go away!... - And she began to sob with such despair with which people only mourn such grief, which they feel themselves to be the cause of. Marya Dmitrievna began to speak again; but Natasha shouted: “Go away, go away, you all hate me, you despise me.” – And again she threw herself on the sofa.
Marya Dmitrievna continued for some time to admonish Natasha and convince her that all this must be hidden from the count, that no one would find out anything if only Natasha took it upon herself to forget everything and not show to anyone that anything had happened. Natasha didn't answer. She didn’t cry anymore, but she began to feel chills and trembling. Marya Dmitrievna put a pillow on her, covered it with two blankets and brought it to her herself. linden color, but Natasha did not respond to her. “Well, let him sleep,” said Marya Dmitrievna, leaving the room, thinking that she was sleeping. But Natasha was not sleeping and, with fixed, open eyes, looked straight ahead from her pale face. All that night Natasha did not sleep, and did not cry, and did not speak to Sonya, who got up and approached her several times.
The next day, for breakfast, as Count Ilya Andreich had promised, he arrived from the Moscow region. He was very cheerful: the deal with the buyer was going well and nothing was keeping him now in Moscow and in separation from the countess, whom he missed. Marya Dmitrievna met him and told him that Natasha had become very unwell yesterday, that they had sent for a doctor, but that she was better now. Natasha did not leave her room that morning. With pursed, cracked lips, dry, fixed eyes, she sat by the window and restlessly peered at those passing along the street and hurriedly looked back at those entering the room. She was obviously waiting for news about him, waiting for him to come or write to her.
Similarity between objects in some respect. The use of analogy in cognition is the basis for making assumptions, guesses, and hypotheses. Reasoning by analogy often led to scientific discoveries. They are based on the formation and updating of associations. A targeted search for an analogy is also possible. Tasks to establish analogies are included in the content of psychodiagnostic examinations. Difficulties in finding similarities between objects on an abstract basis may be an indicator of insufficient development of thinking or its disorders.
ANALOGY
from Greek anab&a - correspondence, similarity).
1. Partial similarity of objects (phenomena, concepts). Wed. analogous organs: functionally and morphologically similar organs of distant, unrelated species of animals and plants.
2. A form of inference (and method of cognition), when, based on the similarity of two objects (phenomena, concepts) according to one characteristics, a conclusion is made about their similarity according to other characteristics. Inferences based on A. do not provide reliable knowledge; conclusions are hypothetical. A., as a way of putting forward hypotheses, plays an important role in scientific knowledge. The modeling method is based on A. The method of introspective psychology is also based on A.
3. Test task, in which the desired (unknown) object must be located to this object in the same relationship in which 2 other specified objects are located among themselves; schematically: A relates to B as B relates to H, (find H); since objects (phenomena, concepts) can be presented not only in verbal, but also in graphic form, we speak of verbal graphic A. According to J. Piaget, the ability to solve verbal A. is one of the criteria for achieving the stage of formal operations. (B.M.)
ANALOGY
In general – resemblance, resemblance, correspondence. Specific uses include: 1. A description, proof, or explanation based on a systematic comparison of one thing with another already known thing. Analogical reasoning done in this way is a useful heuristic for discovering correspondences between objects, but as a logical proof it does not satisfy the requirements necessary to ensure the validity of a statement. 2. In biology, a correspondence in function between two organs or parts. See analogue (2).
ANALOGY
An analogy is a comparison designed to make it easier psychological work. Unlike metaphor, the patient sees a logical connection here.
Analogies of the hypnotic situation are often used before a session to demystify the phenomenon: “It can be compared to the situation in the waiting room when you stop paying attention to your surroundings...”
During hypnosis, the therapist often uses analogies, for example, when levitating an arm, he asks: “What other part of your body could your unconscious give the urge to move?” (Robinot, 1988).
In therapeutic terms, analogies are often used, for example, the analogy between an existing disturbing situation and other situations that are known to be safe or have already become so.
As Erickson and Rossi noted, “analogy is a psychotherapeutic tool that is effective insofar as it addresses both the conscious and the unconscious” (Erickson & Rossi, 1976).
ANALOGY
from Greek analogia - similarity) - similarity between objects, phenomena. As a form of thinking, it is an inductive inference, when, based on the similarity of two objects according to some characteristics, a conclusion is made about their similarity according to other characteristics. A. does not provide reliable knowledge, but it plays an important role in putting forward hypotheses as a means of understanding the problem and the direction of its solution. For example, A. between living organisms and technical devices contributes to the solution of engineering problems (see Bionics, Psychobionics). To increase the likelihood of conclusions based on A, it is necessary to expand the circle of coinciding essential features of the compared objects and take into account the differences between them. A. is involved in teaching in order to make the less understandable more understandable, to present the abstract in a more accessible form, and to concretize abstract ideas. By analogy, one can reason about what is inaccessible to direct observation. Tasks to establish A. are used in psychodiagnostics.
There are several types of analogy.
Based on the nature of the objects being compared, two types of analogy are distinguished: the analogy of properties and the analogy of relations.
Properties analogy- an inference in which the object of comparison is two similar individual objects, and the transferable attribute is the properties of these objects.
This type is characterized by the fact that two objects have some similar properties. On this basis, it is concluded that they may be similar in some other properties. The logical basis for transferring features into in this case is the similarity of the objects being compared as a whole or their similarity in a certain group of essential features that characterize the object from the standpoint of its individual qualities and properties.
Thus, the analogy of light with sound showed that light also has the properties of propagating rectilinearly, being reflected, refracted, etc. But sound still has the property of a wave process. On this basis, it was concluded that light is a wave process.
The analogy of properties can be illustrated with another example. In the same city N, three cases of theft of radio components from stores were recorded, committed by breaking the ceiling through which the criminals entered the store premises. Based on inference through analogy, investigators came up with a version that these were the same criminals. The analogy was visible in three cases: 1) in the nature of the crime committed (theft); 2) the same type of stolen items (radio components); 3) on the way to enter the store (break in the ceiling). The version was confirmed. The criminals were detained.
The property analogy scheme is as follows:
An analogy of relations is an inference in which the object of likening is similar relations between two pairs of objects, and the transferred attribute is the properties of these relations.
This type is characterized by the fact that the objects being compared may not themselves have similar properties, but they have similar relationships with other objects.
We have a relationship ( aR1b) and relation ( mR1n). Similar are the relations R and R1, but a is not similar to m, and b is not similar to n. An example of an analogy of relationships is the planetary model of the atom. Rutherford compared the relationship between the nucleus of an atom and the electrons orbiting it to the relationship between the Sun and the planets. Here R is the interaction of oppositely directed forces - the forces of attraction and repulsion - between the planets and the Sun, and R1- interaction of oppositely directed forces - forces of attraction and repulsion between the nucleus of an atom and electrons, but the planets are not similar to electrons, and the Sun is not similar to the nucleus of an atom.
Based on the analogy of relationships, bionics studies objects and processes of living nature with the aim of using the acquired knowledge in the latest technology. For example, bat when flying, it emits ultrasonic vibrations, then picks up their reflections from objects, accurately navigating in the dark. Man, using this principle, created radars that detect objects and determine their location in any meteorological conditions. Snowmobiles were built, the principle of movement of which was borrowed from penguins. Jellyfish perceive infrasound with a frequency of 8-13 vibrations per second, with the help of which they recognize the approaching storm in advance. Based on this, scientists have created an electronic device that predicts the onset of a storm 15 hours in advance.
The analogy of relationships is often used in art as the basis of metaphor. This is due to the relative independence of this analogy from the specific nature of those objects whose relationships are being considered. Words and dishes sunlight and visual representation - objects belonging to radically different genera. However, in the analogy they are likened to each other. This significantly increases the imagery of our thinking, but also significantly reduces the likelihood of the truth of conclusions obtained from such an analogy.
In this regard, analogies are often divided into figurative and literal analogies. So far, literal analogies have been considered.
A literal analogy is an inference based on the similarity of relationships between objects from the same areas of reality.
A figurative analogy is an inference based on the similarity of relationships between objects from qualitatively different areas of reality, the connection of which has only symbolic meaning.
A figurative analogy is the famous description of democracy: “It is difficult to define what democracy is. She is like a giraffe. Once you look, you won’t confuse it with anything else.”
Different analogies can differ greatly from each other in their evidentiary effect: from strict analogies in mathematics, which are represented, for example, by proportions, to figurative analogies, which do not have any evidentiary power.
According to the nature of inferential knowledge (according to the degree of reliability of the conclusion), an analogy can be strict, non-strict, or false.
Strong (or strong) analogy is common in science. It is characterized by the fact that the transferred trait is associated with other, similar traits. A strict analogy gives a reliable conclusion. The strict analogy is as follows:
A and B in this scheme are compared objects, a, b, c, d are characteristics similar to both objects, e is a characteristic inherent in A and, due to the similarity between objects, transferred to B.
There are two types of strict analogy.
In the analogy of the first type, a theory is used as a scientific methodology that explains the connection between characteristics a, b, c and the transferable characteristic d.
The modeling method is based on the first type of strict analogy, i.e. studying objects using models. It is known that the unity of nature is revealed in “striking analogy” differential equations, relating to various areas of phenomena. In physics, these similar phenomena are very common. Similar equations describe the wave-particle properties of light and similar properties of electrons.
In the second type of analogy, the following are used as a general methodology: 1) general characteristics a, b, c must be exactly the same for the objects being compared; 2) communication signs a,b,c and attribute d should not depend on the specifics of the items being compared. IN social cognition these requirements are complemented by a special methodology for studying one or another sphere of public life.
A strict analogy gives a reliable conclusion, i.e. truth, denoted in many-valued logics, in classical logic, in probability theory by 1. The probability of conclusions by strict analogy is equal to 1.
Non-strict (weak) analogy has a wide range of applications. It is used where the transferred characteristic is not directly related to a similar one, but may occur. This form of analogy gives probable, and sometimes false, erroneous knowledge. If a false judgment is denoted by 0, and the truth by 1, then the degree of probability of conclusions of a non-strict analogy lies in the range from 1 to 0, i.e. 1 > P (a) > 0, where P (a) is the probability of a conclusion based on a loose analogy.
Examples of a loose analogy are the following: testing a model ship in a swimming pool and the conclusion that a real ship will have the same parameters, testing the strength of the bridge on a model, then building a real bridge. If all the rules for constructing and testing the model are strictly followed, then this method approaches strict analogy.
To increase the likelihood of conclusions based on non-strict analogy, a number of conditions must be met:
- 1. The number of common features should be as large as possible;
- 2. It is necessary to take into account the degree of materiality of similar features;
- 3. General characteristics should be as heterogeneous as possible;
- 4. The number and significance of points of difference must be taken into account
- 5. The transferred trait must be of the same type as similar traits.
If these rules are violated, the analogy may give a false conclusion, i.e. become false. The probability of drawing conclusions based on a false analogy is 0. False analogies are sometimes made deliberately, in order to confuse the enemy, i.e. are a sophistic device, or are done unintentionally, as a result of ignorance of the rules for constructing analogies or lack of factual knowledge regarding objects A and B and their properties, on the basis of which the analogy is carried out. Thus, the analogy of Mars with the Earth in relation to possible life on it as a result of flight spaceships to this planet has not been confirmed. No signs of life were found there.
Another example of a false analogy is the organismic analogy of G. Spencer, who identified various administrative bodies in society and attributed to them functions similar to those that arise when functions are divided between the organs of a living body. Superstitions, astronomical predictions, omens, etc. are also based on false analogies. For example, salt spilled - to a quarrel; a coin is found with its tails facing up - to spending, losing; broken mirror- Unfortunately; born under the sign of Scorpio - energetic vampire and so on.
At the same time, analogy, like other types of inference, can be complete or incomplete. In complete similarity, the similarity exceeds the differences; the phenomena being compared have the closest genus. In incomplete - similarity only in some respects.
An analogy could be, like a syllogism, expanded and collapsed (enthymematic).
The types of analogy considered have only relative differences. Thus, when highlighting the analogy of the properties of objects, it is necessary to take into account that properties are manifested in the relations between objects, and when speaking about the analogy of relations, it is necessary to take into account the fact that these relations are similar, and, therefore, are likened in their properties. Therefore, as a result of inference based on the analogy of properties, new information can be obtained about the relationship of an object to others and vice versa. One example. The analogy of electricity with the propagation of heat is an analogy of the properties of two physical phenomena. But the transfer to electricity of the equations developed for heat (an equation is a relation) suggests that an analogy of relations is also revealed here.
Analogy has four main functions.
The main functions of analogy are:
- 1) heuristic - analogy allows you to discover new facts (for example, the discovery of helium);
- 2) explanatory - analogy serves as a means of explaining the phenomenon (planetary model of the atom);
- 3) evidentiary. The evidentiary function of a non-strict analogy is weak. Sometimes they even say: “Analogy is not proof.” However, a strict analogy (especially of the first type) can act as a proof, or at least as an argument approaching a proof;
- 4) epistemological - analogy acts as a means of cognition.
Analogy, like other types of inferences (deduction and induction), has its structure.
inference analogy similarity
